The Law The Many Problems With Our Legal System

[western royboy]

If you place them permanently in prison, you ensure they definitely aren't. You take people who can and will at different times of their lives pay taxes - perhaps not all that much, perhaps they become business owners via doing a trade - and turn them into a perpetual and permanent drain on the state and the rest of citizenry.

Then, you've governmental inefficiencies and general corruption to look at. Tell me, how and where are fixed speed cameras placed in SA (provided that's where you are). Are they in the wealthy neighbourhoods or the poor ones? What about ticket inspectors at train stations, are you more likely to see them in the more socioeconomically challenged areas?

To what extent are you willing to extend the government's control over law and imprisonment over the society it adminster's poorest members?

If you can, give this a go. I get it's long; I originally started a thread with this vid, hoping to start a conversation.



It essentially discusses how policing and imprisonment in America is used by the state to control poor populations and to provide an outlet for capitalist excess; basically, if capitalism cannot employ people at an appropriate rate, the state to an extent will find a reason to imprison those people by depriving them of alternatives.

Sadly agree with a lot of this - a spell in the inside isn’t the panacea most believe it to be. Not many positives just negatives all along the way

 

[Number37]

How is it protecting society from crime and criminals by throwing people in prison only for them to come out more inclined to commit crime?????

 

[Kram]

True but neither is people getting seemingly endless chances.. surely there is a middle ground.

 

[Number37]

Isn't it better to give someone 'endless chances' rather than institutionalizing them and turning them into a hardcore crim?

There has been many tweaks to the system to attempt to find middle ground.
One such change is minimum sentences.

The American example is often cited when this topic comes up.
The USA cracked down on crime with things like 3 strikes etc.
All that did was put more people in jail.
It put so many people in jail that jails were outsourced to corporations.
Which creates a perverse incentive for jail keepers to not rehab people under their care.
It didn't reduce crime.

Jail is supposed to be punishment, deterrent and rehab.
But the prison system is ill equipped to do rehab.
Because there would be howls at the moon if politicians started treating prisoners with humanity and properly funded rehab.
So it is left to animal groups and the like to pick up the slack.
Despite the howls from a resident screw about prisoners not being interested in rehab, those programs show what is possible when the effort to rehab is made.

Big dogs cared for in the big house before they find a family of their own

 

[Better Loosen Up]

How is it protecting society from crime and criminals by throwing people in prison only for them to come out more inclined to commit crime?????

Letting them out on parole clearly isn't working either. If you're unsure, just watch the news every night.

 

[Kram]

Yeah it's easy to run with that approach when it's not your neighbourhood being ruined by clowns that realise there is no serious consequences whatsoever to their actions.

A few weeks back I seen one young bloke swinging his arms at a teenage female in the front yard before then running off. Watching from a distance at best it was slapping her in the face, at worst punches. Was about to ring the police but then thought what's really the point? Absolutely nothing will happen to them anyway.. just took note if the time I witnessed it just case the police come around asking questions about it. (As they do about once a month enquiring about one of their crimes looking for camera footage )

 

[Seeds]

Treating addiction as a medical rather than criminal problem would be a good start.

what does this mean exactly? How does it change things from the way they are dealt with now?

 

[Malifice]

How is it protecting society from crime and criminals by throwing people in prison only for them to come out more inclined to commit crime?????

It's like if your child misbehaves by wagging school.

Grounding him or her in an institution, locked up with a bunch of kids who are dealing/ taking drugs, stealing cars and in gangs for a month is just as likely to have him or her coming out just as bad as those kids as it is to reform him or her.

Our prison system needs to change, with a greater emphasis on reform.

 

[ElectricG]

If you place them permanently in prison, you ensure they definitely aren't. You take people who can and will at different times of their lives pay taxes - perhaps not all that much, perhaps they become business owners via doing a trade - and turn them into a perpetual and permanent drain on the state and the rest of citizenry.

Then, you've governmental inefficiencies and general corruption to look at. Tell me, how and where are fixed speed cameras placed in SA (provided that's where you are). Are they in the wealthy neighbourhoods or the poor ones? What about ticket inspectors at train stations, are you more likely to see them in the more socioeconomically challenged areas?

To what extent are you willing to extend the government's control over law and imprisonment over the society it adminster's poorest members?

If you can, give this a go. I get it's long; I originally started a thread with this vid, hoping to start a conversation.



It essentially discusses how policing and imprisonment in America is used by the state to control poor populations and to provide an outlet for capitalist excess; basically, if capitalism cannot employ people at an appropriate rate, the state to an extent will find a reason to imprison those people by depriving them of alternatives.

Replying late as I really intended to watch your video but ultimately don’t see myself finding the time and/or mustering the energy. Sorry about that, it’s simply too long.

You’re right - when they show the speed camera locations on the news here they are predominately in the Elizabeth area (poor) and very few in the leafy eastern suburb of Unley. I don’t see this as a sign of corruption or some agenda against the poor. It’s simply the police distributing their resources where to where there is the greatest need. You don’t need to spend long in Adelaide’s north to see why there needs to be more speed cameras, or a greater police presence in general.

 

[ElectricG]

Yeah it's easy to run with that approach when it's not your neighbourhood being ruined by clowns that realise there is no serious consequences whatsoever to their actions.

A few weeks back I seen one young bloke swinging his arms at a teenage female in the front yard before then running off. Watching from a distance at best it was slapping her in the face, at worst punches. Was about to ring the police but then thought what's really the point? Absolutely nothing will happen to them anyway.. just took note if the time I witnessed it just case the police come around asking questions about it. (As they do about once a month enquiring about one of their crimes looking for camera footage )

It’s honestly unbelievable how disillusioned the SA public is with the justice system. Just last week when I was gardening out the front I saw a car on my street come to a screeching halt, and then saw a man in the passenger’s seat holding the woman by the neck and shaking her back and forth like a rag doll. I called triple 0 while the car drove off. Coopers rocked up and were like “well I guess they’re gone… so…. all good then, I guess.” You can just hear the hopelessness in their voice.

Also have a few cop friends who are at the point of just wondering what it’s all for. They go to great lengths to investigate an individual with a huge rap sheet for a crime and finally make an arrest, only for the magistrate to act like a f**king mall cop and send him on his merry way, and the guy with a permanent disability from his assault gets no justice. Corrupt, evil, disgusting system.

 

[Gethelred]

Replying late as I really intended to watch your video but ultimately don’t see myself finding the time and/or mustering the energy. Sorry about that, it’s simply too long.

Understandable.

If you do get an opportunity, have a look. It's an utterly unique perspective, as the channel interviews multiple ex-cons and other involved in the American criminal justice system about it, delves into substantial parts of the academia, and discusses the whole thing through the lens black community in America; not through race, but through one singular set of experiences.

Even if you don't agree with it, it's extremely interesting/revealing.

You’re right - when they show the speed camera locations on the news here they are predominately in the Elizabeth area (poor) and very few in the leafy eastern suburb of Unley. I don’t see this as a sign of corruption or some agenda against the poor. It’s simply the police distributing their resources where to where there is the greatest need. You don’t need to spend long in Adelaide’s north to see why there needs to be more speed cameras, or a greater police presence in general.

When I point out that cameras are mainly in poorer areas, I'm not saying it's done out of some diabolical need by power to exert it on the lower classes. It's an example of unconscious bias and structural classism rather than deliberately done.

This one's a little shorter.



It explains unconscious bias from liberals as much as everyone else; namely, the importance of being an ally rather than merely passive.

 

[ElectricG]

Understandable.

If you do get an opportunity, have a look. It's an utterly unique perspective, as the channel interviews multiple ex-cons and other involved in the American criminal justice system about it, delves into substantial parts of the academia, and discusses the whole thing through the lens black community in America; not through race, but through one singular set of experiences.

Even if you don't agree with it, it's extremely interesting/revealing.

When I point out that cameras are mainly in poorer areas, I'm not saying it's done out of some diabolical need by power to exert it on the lower classes. It's an example of unconscious bias and structural classism rather than deliberately done.

This one's a little shorter.



It explains unconscious bias from liberals as much as everyone else; namely, the importance of being an ally rather than merely passive.

Again, I haven’t watched your video.

Sorry, but what are you actually getting at with the speed cameras then? If it’s an example of classism, then it’s an example of why classism is sometimes justified. At least that’s how I view it. Putting more speed cameras in Unley (where you’re lucky if people even reach the speed limit) for the sake of stamping out biases would be taking away resources from where they’re needed.

We are sorta getting away from the topic of whether to imprison or not imprison and towards the progressive/conservative divide, but I’m okay with that if you are.

 

[Gethelred]

Again, I haven’t watched your video.

Sorry, but what are you actually getting at with the speed cameras then?

That society - via capitalism's desire to take the easiest path towards its goals - winds up imprisoning people because of the way poverty is structured and policed within it.

If you have two choices and only one of them results in you feeding your family, are you really not going to break the law?

If you do not have the money - and, let's be honest, the legal literacy - to fight a speeding/parking fine, are you going to pay for a lawyer to help you fight it?

The point of adding the second video is it has an excellent explanation of the unconscious bias of society, and how capitalism winds up - like water - following the path of least resistance which is usually the path the wealthy/powerful (synonyms within capitalist contexts) want it to follow.

If it’s an example of classism, then it’s an example of why classism is sometimes justified. At least that’s how I view it. Putting more speed cameras in Unley (where you’re lucky if people even reach the speed limit) for the sake of stamping out biases would be taking away resources from where they’re needed.

But that's the thing: the reason cameras are there instead of a more affluent area is because you're less likely to have someone dig their feet in and challenge the fine, not because you're more likely to catch people.

We are sorta getting away from the topic of whether to imprison or not imprison and towards the progressive/conservative divide, but I’m okay with that if you are.

We're in a bit of a nebulous, theoretical area here. We're discussing capitalism's affect on the criminal justice system and how it influences things at the extreme bottom; as a consequence while we're a little afield we're still kind of on topic.

 

[ElectricG]

That society - via capitalism's desire to take the easiest path towards its goals - winds up imprisoning people because of the way poverty is structured and policed within it.

If you have two choices and only one of them results in you feeding your family, are you really not going to break the law?

If you do not have the money - and, let's be honest, the legal literacy - to fight a speeding/parking fine, are you going to pay for a lawyer to help you fight it?

The point of adding the second video is it has an excellent explanation of the unconscious bias of society, and how capitalism winds up - like water - following the path of least resistance which is usually the path the wealthy/powerful (synonyms within capitalist contexts) want it to follow.

But that's the thing: the reason cameras are there instead of a more affluent area is because you're less likely to have someone dig their feet in and challenge the fine, not because you're more likely to catch people.

We're in a bit of a nebulous, theoretical area here. We're discussing capitalism's affect on the criminal justice system and how it influences things at the extreme bottom; as a consequence while we're a little afield we're still kind of on topic.

Isn’t the Occam’s Razor explanation for placement of speed cameras that there is more speeding in those areas? When I lived in a poorer area our baby would be woken up most nights by people hooning and doing burnouts down our street. Now we’re in a middle-class-ish area we don’t have that problem. I really think they are doing the right thing by putting more speed cameras in the places that more speeding takes place.

What do you think they should do with speed cameras?

 

[Kram]

They put speed camera where they think they will net the most $...

 

[Gethelred]

Isn’t the Occam’s Razor explanation for placement of speed cameras that there is more speeding in those areas?

I'd have thought Occam's Razor would denote you'd put speed cameras a) where people speed and b) where people are least likely to challenge their fines.

IIRC, Paul Keating took a specific fixed speed camera to court in NSW and performed the defense himself. Not only did he get off, he got that specific camera removed.

When I lived in a poorer area our baby would be woken up most nights by people hooning and doing burnouts down our street. Now we’re in a middle-class-ish area we don’t have that problem. I really think they are doing the right thing by putting more speed cameras in the places that more speeding takes place.

What do you think they should do with speed cameras?

Honestly, I think speed cameras defy the concept of innocent until proven guilty. There are any number of reasons why you might be incapable of maintaining your speed below the limit safely under certain circumstances; there could be a truck right up your arse and braking at all could see you hit, there could be something that causes your car to slip in low traction conditions and accelerating is the best method of getting traction back.

There is also a series of potential problems with speed cameras; the lenses need to be consistently serviced, the cameras need to be on the precise same incline as the road is, you can't be turning or overtaking, the weather can't be inclement or it might disrupt the beam (if we're talking radar guns rather than a fixed camera).

The letter sent on infringement is, itself, a letter of entrapment; it's akin to a police officer having pulled you over asking you, "Do you know how fast you were going?" In that situation, they're looking for an answer which incriminates you; every additional piece of evidence helps.

Every time you refuse to challenge a speed camera reading is an occasion in which a potentially suspect reading goes unnoticed.

Now, we come back to policing. Are you really going to make sure you've crossed every T when it comes to traffic enforcement? During strikes, police warn people where their cameras and booze buses are; emergency crews (ambulance staffing, for example) ensure that during their strikes there's as much service as they can, to ensure that the real cost of the strike is not counted in lives. If a speed camera truly saved lives, the same would be true for them as well yet it isn't.

Speed cameras are a tax on speeding. If you have the money, you can pick and choose the moments when you wish to speed in a way that poorer people - who need their cars to live - cannot.

Now, extend that over the entire criminal justice system. Some people within our society have limited to zero prospects due solely to the circumstances of their birth. Those people find themselves struggling under the yoke of societal abandonment, and they turn to various measures to fulfil their needs; they embrace countercultures and frequently become addicted to drugs (whether we're talking alcohol or cigarettes or something harder) and frequently do not have the money to accomodate those needs. Hell, getting money enough to pay for a car and food is ******* hard enough; I've personally been broke badly enough to have to choose between petrol and food for a fortnight.

So, these people have a choice. They work for s**t money and s**t pay and struggle, or they go and find another means to pay for their lives.

Now, this is more true elsewhere (America, where minimum wage is significantly lower than it is here) but to an extent it's rather truer now in Australia than it has been ever.

Rewinding a bit, if people had the financial wherewithal to entertain themselves another way do you really think they'd be doing ******* burnouts outside your house?

 

[Number37]

Letting them out on parole clearly isn't working either. If you're unsure, just watch the news every night.

That is such an ignorant statement it's not funny.
Do you have any idea how many people are on parole at any one time?
Thousands.
That 1 or 2 or 10 offend whilst on parole doesn't diminish the value of the parole system.
Punishing everybody for the sins of a few doesn't work.
The granting of parole is a judgement.
Just like sentencing.
There is no perfect answer.
You cannot punish people for things someone thinks they might do. That is the complete opposite of the entire justice system.

 

[Number37]

Honestly, I think speed cameras defy the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Strict liability offences do not require mens rea/intent/liability to be proven.
Only need to prove that the act was committed.
Speeding fines are a strict liability offence. Like nearly every regulatory offence.
Whilst there isn't a requirement to prove mens rea strict liability offences come with a built in defence of reasonable mistake.

 

[Gethelred]

Strict liability offences do not require mens rea/intent/liability to be proven.
Only need to prove that the act was committed.
Speeding fines are a strict liability offence. Like nearly every regulatory offence.
Whilst there isn't a requirement to prove mens rea strict liability offences come with a built in defence of reasonable mistake.

... which requires one to be willing to challenge the reading on very specific grounds, which costs a not insignificant amount of money to do.

While you're correct in purely theoretical terms, in practice people do not challenge readings on the basis that they cannot afford to do so an awful lot.

I'm not a fan of strict liability laws. In reality, life is messier than an if X, then Y.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I think speed cameras are as shitty and dumb as the next guy who likes fast cars but aren't all the cameras concentrated in the inner suburbs, particularly the inner east of Melbourne? Seems not the best fit for this topic, IMO if you want to talk about something that rich people are excused on but poor people are smashed for then look at drug use. How many rich, successful influencers have pumped a fat white caterpillar on camera and not had the department rock up to take their kids away.

 

[ElectricG]

I'd have thought Occam's Razor would denote you'd put speed cameras a) where people speed and b) where people are least likely to challenge their fines.

IIRC, Paul Keating took a specific fixed speed camera to court in NSW and performed the defense himself. Not only did he get off, he got that specific camera removed.

Honestly, I think speed cameras defy the concept of innocent until proven guilty. There are any number of reasons why you might be incapable of maintaining your speed below the limit safely under certain circumstances; there could be a truck right up your arse and braking at all could see you hit, there could be something that causes your car to slip in low traction conditions and accelerating is the best method of getting traction back.

There is also a series of potential problems with speed cameras; the lenses need to be consistently serviced, the cameras need to be on the precise same incline as the road is, you can't be turning or overtaking, the weather can't be inclement or it might disrupt the beam (if we're talking radar guns rather than a fixed camera).

The letter sent on infringement is, itself, a letter of entrapment; it's akin to a police officer having pulled you over asking you, "Do you know how fast you were going?" In that situation, they're looking for an answer which incriminates you; every additional piece of evidence helps.

Every time you refuse to challenge a speed camera reading is an occasion in which a potentially suspect reading goes unnoticed.

Now, we come back to policing. Are you really going to make sure you've crossed every T when it comes to traffic enforcement? During strikes, police warn people where their cameras and booze buses are; emergency crews (ambulance staffing, for example) ensure that during their strikes there's as much service as they can, to ensure that the real cost of the strike is not counted in lives. If a speed camera truly saved lives, the same would be true for them as well yet it isn't.

Speed cameras are a tax on speeding. If you have the money, you can pick and choose the moments when you wish to speed in a way that poorer people - who need their cars to live - cannot.

Now, extend that over the entire criminal justice system. Some people within our society have limited to zero prospects due solely to the circumstances of their birth. Those people find themselves struggling under the yoke of societal abandonment, and they turn to various measures to fulfil their needs; they embrace countercultures and frequently become addicted to drugs (whether we're talking alcohol or cigarettes or something harder) and frequently do not have the money to accomodate those needs. Hell, getting money enough to pay for a car and food is ******* hard enough; I've personally been broke badly enough to have to choose between petrol and food for a fortnight.

So, these people have a choice. They work for s**t money and s**t pay and struggle, or they go and find another means to pay for their lives.

Now, this is more true elsewhere (America, where minimum wage is significantly lower than it is here) but to an extent it's rather truer now in Australia than it has been ever.

Rewinding a bit, if people had the financial wherewithal to entertain themselves another way do you really think they'd be doing ******* burnouts outside your house?

Ahhh I personally don’t think there’s an excuse for speeding. “It was because of wheel slip and the road surface” sounds like the kind of thing you’d hear on RBT and have a good laugh about. There is enough tolerance built into those systems to say that generally if you’re busted, you’re busted. And let’s be honest, Keating is the kind of stubborn campaigner to know full well in his mind that he was speeding but take them to task anyway lol.

Given that there aren’t really many cheap performance cars out there, yes they do have the means to find other forms of entertainment. I bet that AB CANNON (or whatever, I’m not a car guy) exhaust cost at least double your grocery bill for last week.

Hey geth, do you reckon people have ways of seeing the world that are almost hard wired and cannot be changed? I really hate to bring this up again, but apples and barrels are the elephant in the room here. I want to blame the people speeding, and you want to blame the system. What do you think?

 

[Number37]

... which requires one to be willing to challenge the reading on very specific grounds, which costs a not insignificant amount of money to do.

While you're correct in purely theoretical terms, in practice people do not challenge readings on the basis that they cannot afford to do so an awful lot.

I'm not a fan of strict liability laws. In reality, life is messier than an if X, then Y.

It's roughly $130 in court fees to go to court to explain yourself.
Lots of people take it up.


Having to prove mens rea instead of having strict liability offences would require a massive amount of police and court resources.

 

[Gethelred]

It's roughly $130 in court fees to go to court to explain yourself.
Lots of people take it up.

I'd be interested in getting a percentage of those who just pay versus those who don't.

Having to prove mens rea instead of having strict liability offences would require a massive amount of police and court resources.

Yep.

I said this in another thread, but ensuring justice is done shouldn't really require cost efficiency.

 

[Gethelred]

Hey geth, do you reckon people have ways of seeing the world that are almost hard wired and cannot be changed? I really hate to bring this up again, but apples and barrels are the elephant in the room here. I want to blame the people speeding, and you want to blame the system. What do you think?

Absolutely this is an apples/barrel thing.

I'm also a little more willing to blame the individual than I've espoused here in this conversation. But there's a more sophisticated byplay between societal forces and individual choices than is generally believed, IMO.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

That is such an ignorant statement it's not funny.
Do you have any idea how many people are on parole at any one time?
Thousands.
That 1 or 2 or 10 offend whilst on parole doesn't diminish the value of the parole system.
Punishing everybody for the sins of a few doesn't work.
The granting of parole is a judgement.
Just like sentencing.
There is no perfect answer.
You cannot punish people for things someone thinks they might do. That is the complete opposite of the entire justice system.

1, 2 or 10? You've got to be kidding yourself!